I sometimes wonder if pop culture brahmins simply don't know what to do with Maddow. Here you have a woman who pontificates on the issues of the day without spouting inanities or playing second banana to the presumed, male brains on the show. Maddow is calmly comfortable with her intellect and her journalistic instincts, and she's not really going to apologize if her competence threatens a viewer. In terms of talking heads, she is sui generis.

Could this be why she's less of a coverage-leader in mainstream media? Or does it have something to do with the numbers? Maddow is frequently second to her counterpart on FOX (alternately O'Reilly or Hannity) and O'Reilly does manage to set media agendas in a way that Maddow hasn't been able to yet?

Two other talking-head shows that have done tremendously well in leading -- and getting credit for leading -- news coverage? The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. I briefly thought, "Maybe Maddow needs to loop [Daily Show co-creator] Lizz Winstead into her production team and add a bit of pop culture contagion." She's got the formula down -- a hybrid of facts and entertainment.

Except that sort of undermines Maddow's appeal, which is that she really feels no need to neutralize her brains and focus with a goofy entertainment act. Why, do you think, is gravitas so unsettling to media professionals and consumers?

Love what you're reading here? Become a member! For just $5 a month, members get access to all of our online content as well as a subscription to Bitch magazine in print & digital.

I know this is a late comment for this entry ( and I have no purses to sell). I just wanted to point out that Rachel Maddow's first show on Air America was "Unfiltered" with cohosts Lizz Winstwad and Chuck D. It was a great show.

Winstwad quit when the station promised their time slot to Jerry Springer. Maddow stayed on and accepted an evening slot, and they renamed the show "The Rachel Maddow Show". Just thought that was relevant to an article that mentions both of them.